nor am i suggesting i've got some specific assignment. but what i want to do is to get ideas from him and see if there's some ways that we can potentially work together. >> with congress, one of the most frequent criticisms we've heard over the past few years from members on both sides is that you haven't done enough to reach out and build relationships. are there concrete ways that you plan to approach your relationships with congress in the second term? >> i think there's no doubt that i can always do better, and so i will examine ways that i can make sure to communicate my desire to work with everybody so long as it is advancing the cause of strengthening our middle class and improving our economy. i've got a lot of good relationships with folks both in the house and the senate. i have a lot of relationships on both sides of the aisle.

it hasn't always manifested itself in the kind of agreements that i'd like to see between democrats and republicans, and so i think all of us have responsibilities to see if there are things that we can improve on, and i don't exempt myself from needing to do some self-reflection and see if i can improve our working relationship. there are probably still going to be some very sharp differences, and as i said during the campaign, there are going to be times when those are fights and i think those are fights that need to be had. but what i think the american people don't want to see is a focus on the next election instead of a focus on them. and i don't have another election. michelle and i were talking last night about, you know, what an incredible honor and privilege it is to be put in this

position. there are people all across this country -- millions of folks -- who worked so hard to help us get elected but there are also millions of people who may not have voted for us but are also counting on us. and we take that responsibility very seriously. i take that responsibility very seriously. and i hope and intend to be an even better president in the second term than i was in the first. jonathan carl. >> thank you, mr. president. senator john mccain and senator lindsey graham both said today that they want to have water gate style hearings on the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi and said that if you nominate susan rice to be secretary of state they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. as senator graham said, he simply doesn't trust ambassador rice about what she said about benghazi. would those threats deter you from making a nomination?

>> first, i'm not going to comment on various nominations that i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice. she has done exemplary work she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. i'm happy to have that

discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received? and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. we're after an election mao. i think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in benghazi. i'm happy to cooperate in any ways congress wants. we've provided every bit of information that we have and we will continue to provide information and we've got a full-blown investigation and all that information will be given to congress. i don't think there's any debate in this country that when you have four americans killed, that's a problem and we have to

get to the bottom of it and there needs to be accountability. we've got to bring those who carried it out to justice. they won't get any debate from me on that. but when they go after the u.n. ambassador? apparently because they think she is an easy target? then they've got a problem with me. and should i choose, if i think that she would be the best person to serve america in the capacity of the state department, thenally nominate her. that's not a determination that i've made yet. ed henry. >> want to take chuck's lead and just ask a very small follow-up, which is whether you feel you have a mandate not just on taxes but on a range of issues because of your decisive victory. but i want to stay on benghazi. you said if they want to come

after me, come after me. want to ask about the families of these four americans who were killed. sean smith's father ray says he believes his son basically called 911 for help and they didn't get it. i know you've said you grieved for these four americans. that's being investigated but the families have been waiting for more than two months. so i would like to -- for you to address the families, if you can. on 9/11, as commander in chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives? >> ed, i'll address the families not through the press. i'm address the families directly, as i already have. and we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day. that's what the investigation is for. but as i said repeatedly, if people don't think that we did everything we can to make sure that we save the lives of folks

who i sent there and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the united states, then you don't know how hour defense department thinks are or our state department thinks or our cia thinks. their number one priority is obviously protecting american lives. that's what our job is. now -- ed, i'll put forward -- i will put forward every bit of information that we have. i can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were -- do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. and that's the same order that i would give any time that i see americans are in danger, whether they're civilian or military. because that's our number one priority. with respect to the issue of manda mandate, i've got one mandate. i've got a mandate to help

middle class families and families that are working hard to try to get into the middle class. that's my mandate. that's what the american people said. they said work really hard to help us. don't worry about the politics of it, don't worry about the party interests, don't worry about the special interests. just work really hard to see if you can help us get ahead, because we're working really hard out here an we're still struggling, a lot of us. that's my mandate. i don't presume that because i won an election that everybody suddenly agrees with me on everything. i'm more than familiar with all the literature about presidential overreach in second terms. we are very cautious about that. on the other hand, i didn't get re-elected just to bask in re-election. i got elected to do work on behalf of american families and

small businesses all across the country who are still recovering from a really bad recession but are hopeful about the future. and i am, too. the one thing that i said during the campaign that maybe sounds like a bunch of campaign rhetoric, but now that the campaign is over i'm going to repeat it and hopefully you guys will really believe me -- when you travel around the country, you are inspired by the grit and resilience and hard work and decency of the american people. and it just makes you want to work harder. you meet families who are -- have overcome really tough odds and somehow are making it and sending their kids to college and you meet young people who are doing incredible work in disadvantaged communities because they believe in the american ideal and it should be

available for everybody. and you meet farmers who are helping each other during times of drought and you meet businesses that kept their doors open during the recession, even though the owner didn't have to take a salary, and when you talk to these folks, you say to yourself, man, they deserve a better government than they've been getting. they deserve all of us here in washington to be thinking every single day, how can i make things a little bit better for them? which isn't to say that everything we do is going to be perfect or that there aren't just going to be some big, tough challenges that we have to grapple with. but i do know the federal government can make a difference. we're seeing it right now on the jersey coast and in new york. people are still going through a really tough time. the response hasn't been perfect. but it's been aggressive and

strong and fast and robust and a lot of people have been helped because of it. that's a pretty good metaphor for how i want the federal government to operate generally and i'm going to do everything i can to make sure it does. christy parson. >> thank you, mr. president. and congratulations, by the way. >> thanks. >> one quick -- >> christy was there when i was running for state senate. >> that's right, i was. >> christy and i go back a ways. >> i've never seen you lose. i wasn't looking that one time. >> there you go. >> one quick follow-up. then i want to ask you about iran. i just want to make sure i understand what you said. can you envision any scenario in which we do go off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year? and on iran, are you preparing a final diplomatic push here to resolve the nuclear program issue and are we headed toward one-on-one talks? >> well, obviously we can all

imagine a scenario where we go off the fiscal cliff. if despite the election, if despite the dangers of going over the fiscal cliff and what that means for our economy, that there is too much stubbornness in congress that we can't even agree on giving middle class families a tax cut, then middle class families are all going to end up having a big tax hike. that's going to be a pretty rude shock for them and i suspect we'll have a big impact on the holiday shopping season, which in turn will have an impact on business planning and hiring, and we can go back into a recession. it would be a bad thing. it is not necessary. i want to repeat -- step number one that we can take in the next couple of weeks, provide

certainty to middle class families, 98% of families who make less than $250,000 a year. 97% of small businesses, that their taxes will not go up a single dime next year. give them that certainty right now. we can get that done. we can then set up a structure whereby we are dealing with tax reform, closing deductions, closing loopholes, simplifying, dealing with entitlements, and i'm ready and willing to make big commitments to make sure that we're locking in the kind of deficit reductions that stabilize our deficit, start bringing it down, start bringing down our debt. i'm confident we can do it. it's -- and, look. i've been living with this for a couple of years now. i know the math pretty well. and it's -- it really is arithmetic. it's not calculus. there are some tough things that have to be done but there is a way of doing this that does not

hurt middle class families, that does not hurt our seniors, doesn't hurt families with disabled kids, allows us to continue to invest in those things that make us grow like basic research and education, helping young people afford going to college. as we've already heard from some republican commentators, a modest tax increase on the wealthy is not going to break their backs. they'll still be wealthy. and it will not impinge on business investment. so we know how to do this. this is just a matter of whether or not we come together and go ahead and say, democrats and republicans, we're both going to hold hands and do what's right for the american people. and i hope that's what happens. with respect to iran, i very much want to see a diplomatic resolution to the problem. i was very clear before the

campaign. i was clear during the campaign and i'm now clear after the campaign. we're not going to let iran get a nuclear weapon. but i think there is still a window of time for us to resolve this diplomatically. we've imposed the toughest sanctions in history. it is having an impact on iran's economy. there should be a way in which they can enjoy peaceful nuclear power while still meeting their international obligations and providing clear assurances to the international community that they're not pursuing a nuclear weapon so, yes, i will try to make a push in the coming months to see if we can open up a dialogue between iran and not just us but the international community to see if we can get this thing resolved. i can't promise that iran will walk through the door that they need to walk through, but that would be very much the preferable option. [ inaudible question ]

>> i won't talk about details of the negotiations but i think it is fair to say that we want to get this resolved and we're not going to be constrained by diplomatic niceties or protocols. if iran is serious about wanting to resolve this, they'll be in a position to resolve it. >> just prior to the election there was talk that talks might be imminent -- >> that was not true and it's not true as of today. okay? just going to knock through a couple others. mark laners? >> thank you, mr. president. in his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, mayor bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent. tomorrow you're going up to new york city where you're going to, i assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of hurricane sandy which many people say is further evidence

of how a warming globe is changing our weather. what specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change, and do you think the political will exists in washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of a tax on carbon? >> as you know, mark, we can't attribute any particular weather event to climate change. what we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing, faster than was predicted even ten years ago. we do know that the arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. we do know that there have been extraordinarily -- there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in north america, but also

around the globe. and i am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions, and as a consequence i think we've got an obligation to future generations to do something about it. now in my first term we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. that will have an impact. that will take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. we doubled the production of clean energy which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation. and we continue to invest in potential break-through technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere. but we haven't done as much as we need to, so what i'm going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several months, is

having a conversation, wide ranging conversation, with scientists, engineers, and elected officials to fine out what can -- what more can we do to make short-term progress in reduce i reducing carbons, and then working through an education process that i think is necessary, a discussion, a conversation across the country about what realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not something we're passing on to future generations that's going to be very expensive and very painful to deal with. i don't know what either democrats or republicans are prepared to do at this point because this is one of those issues that's not just a partisan issue, i also think

there are regional differences. there is no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices and understandably i think the american people right now have been so focused, and will continue to be focused, on our economy an jobs and growth that if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, i don't think anybody's going to go for that. i won't go for that. if, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth, and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, i think that's something that's american people would support. you can expect that you'll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners

bipartisan support and helps move this agenda forward. ] inaudible question ] >> that i'm pretty certain of. look, we're still trying to debate whether we can just make sure middle class families don't get a tax hike. let's see if we can resolve that. that should be easy. this one's hard. but it's important, because one of the things that we don't always factor in are the costs involved in these natural disasters. we just put them off as something that's unconnected to our behavior right now and i think what -- based on the evidence we're seeing is that what we do now is going to have an impact and a cost down the road if we don't do something about it. all right. last question.

mark felzenthal. where's mark? >> thank you. mr. president, the assad regime is engaged in a brutal crackdown on its people. france has recognized the opposition coalition. what would it take for the united states to do the same, and is there any point at which the united states would consider arm, the rebels? >> i was one of the first leaders i think around the world to say assad had to go in response to the incredible brutality that his government displayed in the face of what were initially peaceful protests. obviously the situation in syria's deteriorated since then. we have been extensively engaged with the international community, as well as regional powers to help the opposition. we've committed to hundreds of millions of dollars of humanitarian aid to help folks both inside of syria and outside of syria. we are constantly consulting

with the opposition on how they can get organized so that they're not splintered and divide in the face of the onslaught from the assad regime. we're in very close contact with countries like turkey and jordan that immediately border syria and have an impact -- and obviously israel which is having already grave concerns as we do about, for example, movements of chemical weapons that might occur in such a chaotic atmosphere. and that could have an impact not just within syria but on the region as a whole. i'm encouraged to see that the syrian opposition created an umbrella group that may have more cohesion than they've had in the past. we're going to be talking to them. my envoys are going to be traveling to various meetings that are going to be taking place with the international

community and the opposition. we consider them a legitimate representative of the aspirations of the syrian people. we're not yet prepared to recognize them as some sort of government in exile, but we do think that it is a broad-based representative group. one of the questions that we're going to continue to press is making sure that that opposition is committed to a democratic syria, an inclusive syria, a moderate syria. we have seen extremist elements insinuate themselves into the opposition and one of the things that we have to be on guard about, particularly when we start talking about arming opposition figures is that we're not indirectly putting arms in the hands of folks who would do americans harm or do israelis harm or otherwise engage in

actions that are detrimental to our national security. so we're constantly probing and working on that issue. the more engaged we are, the more we'll be in a position to make sure that we are encouraging the most moderate, thoughtful elements of the opposition that are committed to inclusion, observance of human rights and working cooperatively with us over the long term. all right? thank you very much. [ inaudible question ] >> that was a great question but it would be a horrible precedent for me to answer your question just because you yelled it out. so thank you very much, guys. >> saying that his only mandate is to help the middle class,

help small business and grow the economy. the president is optimistic that he can work with congress to fine a compromise on the fiscal cliff, although he is sticking to his guns about raising tax rates on those making more than $250,000 a year, something the gop and john boehner have said they are unlikely to support. welcome to this special "rise above" edition of street signs coming to you live from the white house. i am brian sullivan where the president just wrapped up his first news conference since re-election and his first in eight months. since that time there's been this little thing called the election and that big thing we are all facing called the fiscal cliff. the markets are selling off for a number of reasons. let's see where the markets stand and welcome back michelle caruso-cabrera. >> brian, take a look at the markets. intrasession here, the dow hit its lows of the session during president obama while he was speaking, lower by 107 points. 12,648. the dow down 1,000 points from the year's high. nasdaq dipping into correction territory right now, lower by 17 points. down 10% from its highs of 2012.

retailers, prominent among today's movers, abercrombie & fitch soaring after a blow-out quarter. 30% gain after raising its earnings estimate for the year. staples also rising in a down market, a gain of nearly 3%. also better than expected earnings. checking gold, up about $3 on the fed minutes. we're going to check in with steve leisman in a second about those. but first, bob pisani is at the nyse. >> hello, mirchelle. most of the time stocks were pretty flat as president obama was speaking. they did dip to the lows of the day though when he started talking about tax increases on the wealthy. president obama said going over the fiscal cliff will have an impact on the holiday season. take a look at the dow industrials. he made these comments, the dow dropped to the lows of the day. would impact corporate planning as well. he stood firm on the tax the wealthy rhetoric, by and large, saying a modest increase in taxes on the wealthy, "will not break their backs," and would not impinge on business

investments. he reiterated again several times, "what i am not going to do is exten the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%. that we cannot afford." i think that was the reason we saw the markets dip down a little bit. tougher rhetoric coming from the president. michelle is right, folks, the dow's dropped 1,000 points in the last three weeks or so. partly on concerns over the election, partly on the fiscal cliff. bottom line here, brian, we're down about 8% from our highs, those five-year highs that we hit on october 5th. back to you. >> bob, a lot to do, including the increased tensions in the middle east. also the subject of that press conference. certainly it is a big day in washington. we just wrapped up that news conference. but the president is not done. he'll meet with 12 ceos in the white house right now, mostly consumer focused industries. they will work together to figure out how business could help perhaps rise above the partisan rhetoric to fix this fiscal cliff. we've got our all-star team ready to tackle all of it. john harwood, my take-away from the news conference was this --

aside from everything else, you heard the president sticking to his guns about raising tax rates on those making more than $250,000, something john boehner said he is unlikely to support. that seems to be the entire crux of the fiscal cliff stalemate. >> well, it's only part of it, brian, because you've also got the issue of entitlements. you notice the president got a question at the tail end of that news conference on the spending side which he didn't address because he hadn't called on our colleague who asked the question. on taxes, what you heard from the president was a practical argument, saying that he doesn't see how you you could get enough money from simply closing loopholes but he didn't -- it wasn't a principled objection that he was striking, merely saying he wants to get money from the top. sounds to me like one possible compromise from the president's points of view would be some sort of increase in the top rate in addition to closing deductions. didn't necessarily draw a red line as chuck todd said in

asking him the question on 39.6 as the top rate. >> can you ask chuck todd behind you if he's wearing a "rise above" pin? of i've got one for him. >> john, when we watched the president speak, the dows did go to the lows of the session, as bob pisani brought up. if anybody was looking for an olive branch today, did they hear one? doesn't sound like it. >> you know, it depends on what you consider an olive branch. i think the president's commitment is to get tax money, more tax money from people at the top. that was an absolute demand by the president but the means of doing so i think remains negotiable. he said he was skeptical that you could get money without raising the top rate, enough money for a big deficit reduction deal without raising the top rate. but that didn't necessarily follow that he is going to insist on 39.6. we'll see how the negotiations play out and if people think that the president was going to

give in on the demand for more tax money for people at the top, no, they did not get an olive branch on that today. >> john, you know very well that the gop has a hard road to climb because it is a lot easier to sell a couple of percent on rich people than it is to say we're going to rip away some deductions and loopholes to help increase revenue. taxes are complex. that's a much harder political sell. john, we'll talk to you in a bit. thank you. the president is now just minutes away from meeting with business leaders, a meeting that's ruffling feathers on wall street and maybe even some on main street. all right, eamon, who's going to be there? who's not going to be there? >> well, obviously one of the big issues here has been that there's no big bank ceo who is in the room right now. but obviously all of those ceos would have had access inside the white house here to the president's press conference. they were going to be listening for that specific olive branch. some big names in the room there. we saw jeff immelt of ge walking in. also the ceo of american express.

ursula burns of xerox. a variety of others were walking down the driveway here on the white house north lawn on their way in a little bit early. they were in there in time to get settled and listen for that olive branch. in my listen of that press conference, i did not hear a specific olive branch, a specific offer by the president. what i heard was the president saying twice, look, the american people understood what they were getting when they re-elected me. >> eamon? steve leisman here. i agree with you. i didn't hear the olive branch. i heard the opposite. i sort of heard "no soup for you" is kind of what i heard in the sense that when he said i want the tax rates for the middle and lower class to remain in place, raise taxes for the wealthy in return -- if i'm not wrong what i heard -- a structure to discuss entitlements. >> a structure to discuss entitlements is what they have in place. that's called the fiscal cliff debate. that's what's going on right now. the president didn't offer any specific thing along the lines what have we heard from john boehner last week, okay, we're there on reven on the

table, we'll meet you there. i didn't hear any specific -- >> don't we already have a structure? wasn't that erskine-bowles? it is another committee. >> it is a step back i think from the idea of a deal right now that would trade entitlement reform for tax increases. it sounds to me like it's tax increases for the wealthy in return for a commitment to discuss entitlement reform. >> what you did hear from the president is a statement that the american people knew what they were get what they re-elected me. he also said there is a big contrast between me and mitt romney on the campaign trail and i'm the guy who won the election. >> as one of our smart viewers tweeted in which i thought was so smart -- it's all fun and games until you have to name specific entitlements you want to cut. right? we need more specifics from both sides. all right, going to a break here but after the break, steve leisman, stick around. we also have something today called the fomc minutes. could we see quantitative easing 4 coming next year? it might be possible. we'll also talk more about

who will not be in the president's meeting with 12 ceos coming up in minutes. it is a big day. it is a big "rise above" "street signs." we're at the white house. back for you right after this. if a budgets is not agreed upon to avoid the fiscal cliff, the average middle class family will pay almost $2,000 more in taxes. work hard for a better f. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪

if lawmakers allow the payroll tax to expire, federal taxes will be raised on more than 120 million households. while the president was speaking, the federal reserve released their minutes. cnbc's steve leisman is here with that. what do they have to say? >> so they told us what i think we knew, which is that they're probably going to do additional asset purchases in january when the extenders -- what they're doing right now, this operation twist -- when that runs out. selling short term, buying long ter term.

qe3-plus, maybe qe4. it is another extension of "operation twist" but they'll get rid of the selling and all they'll be doing is buying. that's one thing. another thing is they're having this big discussion internally about the guidance they provide and all i can tell you, michelle, is when i read the minutes, it doesn't sound like the discussion's ready for prime time. they are literally all over the place. they agree it needs to clang. what's the sflem they don't like this calendar dade guidance. they think it should be linked to economic goals, or economic targets. like we will stop keeping rates low when unemployment gets below, x or if inflation gets above y. but they can't agree on the targets. they're worried about the effects of pegging numbers. they all agree it's something we need to do. we need to turn left. we need to turn left. but nobody could agree on when to turn or how or the speed of the car. they're all over the place. i think something is going to change soon. it's unclear when.

what bernanke said, reading the minutes made it clear they're not ready for it to happen. >> steve, i want to call this seg many the fomcc. >> that's michelle caruso-cabrera. >> could we get to this point? splashed on the front page of the federal reserve's website is a sign that says if unemployment goes to this, we will do this. could that happen? would it be a good idea? >> everybody thinks that's a good idea. for once, i agree with you and other people agree with you. i want to make that point. but they can't agree on what those numbers are and they're very concerned, brian, that if they put up those two numbers that people will think that's all the fed is looking at and they'll think those are their actual goals through the economy rather than triggers for when the federal reserve will change their rate guidance. >> steve, they only have two mandates, right? maximize unemployment, basically keep inflation in collection.

set an inflation target, set an unemployment target and people can play along at home. >> you just affirmed the fed's fears right there because you just confused their economic targets with the targets that would trigger a change in policy. if you read the minutes, there is specific concern about the public confusing those two goals. >> was there any concern expressed about the effectiveness of quantitative easing still at this point? >> there is some concern about inflation. they were a little concerned about the what inflation numbers showed in the intervening period. a couple of the guys -- we could probably name who they are. this shows that we may potentially lose control of inflation expectations. that's not the predominant view of the board which feels that the inflation we had from energy worked its way through an we do not have an inflation -- >> stay with us. let's go to the schwab impact conference in chicago. bringing in a voice outside of the cnbc circle, erin gibbs, not sure if you had a chance to listen to the president but bottom line, as somebody that helps allocate capital and make

recommendations on investments, do you believe we will get a fix to the fiscal cliff before the end of the year? >> well, we certainly hope so. the economy is still in a shaky period and we need this fiscal cliff. we need policymakers to come to an agreement. from president obama's speech, we really weren't given a lot of guidance. there is still a lot of uncertainty out there and there's nothing that's been said that looks like they've really come to any meaningful agreement. >> erin, when bob pisani did his report immediately after the president's news conference, he pointed out that the markets went to the lows of the session at certain points where he was talking about really being emphatic on raising tacks on the wealthy. is that just conspiracy theory or do you think that makes sense that the markets would go to the lows of the session on that? >> i think that may be more of a coincidence. i think right now the biggest thing is just uncertainty. the only thing he talked about was the tax rates on the wealthiest. he still didn't address specifically capital gains or the dividend rates.

other than the 2%, the wealthiest americans, they all know their tax rates are going up but the rest of americans are still unsure how much money they're going to have next year. >> erin -- and especially mcc, who is such a great advocate of markets -- help me out here. because everything i saw leading up to the election made it clear to me that the president was going to win the election with a small percentage chance that he would lose. and yet everybody says the reaction of the market after the election was apparently to the surprise of obama winning. i thought -- michelle, help me -- you've been trying to temperature me this for years -- that markets are efficient and they correctly price these things in. how is it possible the market woke up on wednesday and since then has just learned of the obama -- >> because there were numerous polls and plenty of poflz that showed that the election was far closer. it's that simple. >> i don't know. >> and, steve -- the senate -- i don't think anybody expected the dems to prick up additional seats in the senate.

erin, forget about income. no income taxes. do you believe the lowing hanging fruit of all is raising capital gains and dividend taxes? >> i think that's one of the ways that we can raise taxes, and again just decrease that uncertainty. right now companies aren't sure how to pay dividends, they aren't sure whether to buy back shares and help with the capital appreciation. it's just getting rid of the uncertainty, we can actually get down to business if we actually knew what the game and what the rules are. >> erin gibbs, s&p capital iq, thank you. coming up next -- just how rich is rich? we drop the $250,000 a year family into different parts of the country to see just how far that money goes. trust me, you will be surprised as this "rise above" d.c. edition of "street signs" continues right after this. ♪

[ female announcer ] today, it's not just about who lives in the white house, it's about who lives in the yellow house, the green, and the apartment house, too. today we not only honor the oval office, but we honor the cubicle, and the home office as well. because today it's about all of us. and no matter who you are, you're the commander-in-chief of your own life. ♪ you're the commander-in-chief well that was uncalled for. folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico sure are happy. how happy, ronny? happier than gallagher at a farmers' market. get happy. get geico. chances are, you're not made of money, so don't overpay for motorcycle insurance. geico, see how much you could save.

customer erin swenson bought from us online today. so, i'm happy. sales go up... i'm happy. it went out today... i'm happy. what if she's not home? (together) she won't be happy. use ups! she can get a text alert, reroute... even reschedule her package. it's ups my choice. are you happy? i'm happy. i'm happy. i'm happy. i'm happy. i'm happy. happy. happy. happy. happy. (together) happy. i love logistics.

that's where we are today on this "rise above" edition of "street signs." just where that power shares banner is. in those doors, 12 ceos and the president sitting down to meet. not really hur how long the meeting will last but the president will slis sit ideas. going to hear from some of the ceos about their concerns about how to resolve the fiscal cliff.

when those ceos come out we hope to grab a few for you. we have breaking news from herb greenberg. >> brian, sources tell cnbc that starbucks will acquire the chain teavana. that's about a 200-store chain based in atlanta. we understand the news it looks like will be -- is expected to be released at some point, perhaps after the close today. look, teavana's stock was up about 35% today, at one point based on a story in the "atlanta business journal." teavana stock has then halted on news pending. howard schultz has said he wants to get deeper into the tea business. you know they own the brand tazo. so the big question here will be -- after this deal is announced, if it is announced, as we believe it will be announced, will they rename teavana tazo. >> two things. the teavana ceo is likely in

palm springs. i was supposed to go there for ta conference. number two, is this a sign that starbucks is admitting coffee growth may be slowing down? >> they've already admitted that, brian. they acquired a bakery chain, they acquired evolution fresh, a fruit chain. they've been trying to sort of expand around this and diversify going into the future. by the way, starbucks has about $2.5 billion worth of cash on their balance sheet. they have the cash to do this deal. we'll see what they say. >> but right now that deal is not yet in the bag? >> what we can say is that there's been a lot of chatter about it. >> come on, herb. in the bag? teavana? >> pardon? >> you're not getting me, herb. >> i'm getting you. sources tell cnbc that this is a deal. >> it's in the bag. thank you -- i'm going to keep saying it until you smile, herb. thank you. what exactly is rich? the president believes it is

those make 2g $50,000 or more or $200,000 as an individual but an eye opening report on the fiscal times says we may have to rethink that number. jackie deangelis, break it down for us, please. >> good afternoon, brian. lots of discussion regard rg the fiscal cliff. a piece of the conversation focuses on the tax hikes that the president is looking to impose on those high income earners, those who make $250,000 are the households that are considered rich in this country. answer to that question depends on where you live. for example, living in new york costs about double compared to living in peoria, illinois according to salary.com. new york employers may pay a bit more to compensate but only about 30% for similar jobs. also consider housing costs as well. a three to four bedroom house in glendale, california is about $750,000. comparable area, twin falls, idaho, is about $325,000 for the same kind of house.

what about the cost of food? an assortment of groceries in new york city. 72% more than those same72% more same items in twin falls, idaho. about two years ago, the fiscal times commissioned a study on this from a national tax accounting firming. they looked at several areas around the country for this hypothetical couple that earns $250,000 with two children. if they lived in huntington, new york, they'd have a deficit at the end of the year of $24,380. if they lived in a place like plano, texas, they'd be ahead by $4,936. that would be at the end of the career. pl plan plano, texas, was the only area where the couple came out ahead. is $250,000 rich? >> depends where you live. jackie, that was great. michelle, i have a question to you because i threw it out there on twitter. do you believe it's possible to have an income tax rate or maybe

deductions that roll back based on geography? in other words, $250,000 gets you in boston and new york, but you start to classify people wealthy for tax reasons. i'd say $150,000 a year in peoria. >> no, not at the federal level. certainly not. states should compete on income tax level, and they do. that way the more efficient states don't end up paying for all the profligate states. i think that would be -- that would make the tax system far more complicated than it already is. >> fair enough. do i get a second for the cnbc twin falls bureau? >> do we have one? >> let's open it. all right. >> obama's $250,000 cutoff would mean higher taxes for lots of americans, including many small business owners. why aren't small business leaders at obama's ceo meeting today? they're not the only ones who

aren't there. we'll debate next as this special edition of "street signs" continues next. the only underarm treatment for low t. that's right, the one you apply to the underarm. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18. axiron can transfer to others through direct contact. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these signs and symptoms to your doctor if they occur. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. do not use if you have prostate or breast cancer. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet, or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. see your doctor, and for a 30-day free trial, go to axiron.com.

i've been a superintendent for 30 some years at many different park service units across the united states. the only time i've ever had a break is when i was on maternity leave. i have retired from doing this one thing that i loved. now, i'm going to be able to have the time to explore something different. it's like another chapter.

the president a dozen ceos meeting right now inside the white house, where is where we

are in this special rise above edition of "street signs." the ceo of american express, the lone ceo from the financial services industry. so why aren't ceos from major wall street banks here, and where are the small business representatives today? let's ask katherine wilde and todd mccracken, ceo of the national small business administration supporters of tax reform and deficit reduction. todd, first to you. listen, where is small business today? >> well, i'm sitting right here, i guess. >> you're not there. problem is you're not even there. >> we're not at the white house, that's for sure. we look forward to them having us. we think a lot of the topics on the table are a key interest to small business. obviously, the individual tax rates don't directly affect the big corporations that are there today. they do affect small business folks, many of them. at the same time, the lack of certainty and the huge fiscal

cliff that we're facing or -- >> but mr. mccracken, the president made very clear, he said 97% of small businesses get less than $250,000. so this isn't a big deal for small businesses, is it? >> it depends where you sit. it certainly is the case that the vast majority of small businesses don't make more than $250,000 in any given year. but it's also the case that many of the companies that are growing and have the potential to grow and have the potential to add employees do fall into that category. they're not the ones you want to have sort of step back from that economic role at this point in time. it cuts both way, obviously. >> katherine, your organization, in part, a vehicle for the president to reach out to businesses. are they being receptive, or are they upset by all the talk about higher tax rates, higher dividend -- are they back on board with the president? >> i think the business leaders that are present to the white house today are delighted that the president is tackling the issue of the fiscal cliff, the economy, and the jobs situation. of course, these are very much

tied together. he's doing that right out of the box. the dozen business leaders there today, i can assure you are not there with their corporate hats on. they're there as americans who care deeply about the future of our economy. they are champions of small business as well as large business. they are important employers that want to see jobs coming back again. so they were very happy to be invited to the white house. i'm sure that what's on their minds is supporting what the president's trying to do on bringing this -- >> but katherine, when he was asked very specifically, he said, first thing, you have to keep taxes on the middle class the same. keep taxes on the lower class the same. the upper class has to pay more than, then we can have a structure to discuss entitlement reform. that sounds like more of the same. that doesn't actually sound like anything getting done. that sounds like gang of six all over again. we get a structure to discuss rather than a resresolution. >> the way we look at it, three

strikes and you're out. >> he's in for four more years. >> i think what we're going to see hopefully is, yes, a focus on revenues. i think the business community will support that. the representatives there, i think, are willing to take higher taxes on high earners. only as part of a complete package where we once and for all put america on the right course for a $4 trillion goal in terms of tackling our agenda. i really believe that -- >> todd -- sorry to jump in. todd, what concerns me is we know that small business is not the job creator. new business is the job creator. new businesses, by nature, tend to be small to start. so we need actual job creation through new companies. i haven't heard much about that from the president. how do we get people to take risks, to borrow money and start new corporations? >> well, i think that really is key. you hit the nail on the head. we have to get new businesses to start and those businesses to then grow very rapidly.

one of the real keys to that really is to get people in a position where they feel they want to succeed, where they can see what's going to happen in the next couple years, which is one of the reasons we need to have a big deal here, so we can get a handle on tax reform and the fiscal cliff and put our fiscal house in order so people can have some confidence going forward. that's the first piece. >> todd, do you think the president understands the struggles of a business owner? >> he's had an opportunity to meet with small business people. i think that he does. translating that in the world of washington, though, i think is also often very difficult. but i do think that -- i think he sees the need. i think we still have to help him make the connection with policy in washington. >> katherine and todd, we have to leave it there. thank you both very much. see you again. just before we go, starbucks has confirmed its offer for $15.50 per share.